Consumer Forums cannot condone delays in filing written statements beyond the mandatory statutory period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited.

Present:-

For the Petitioner : Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents : Sh. Kartikeya Puri, Advocate for Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The Petitioner/Opposite Party i.e. Canara Bank, through its Chairman/Managing Director has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 47 (1)(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the “Act”) for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (hereinafter called as the “District Commission”), whereby the Petitioner/OP had been proceeded exparte.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainants which are necessary for disposal of the present Revision Petition are that Respondents/Complainants filed Consumer Complaint before the District Commission for seeking a personal accident insurance claim on account of death of one Sarwan Singh. Notice in the Complaint was issued which was served upon the Petitioner/OP but none had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner/OP and it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the District Commission which is subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Petitioner.

Mr. Nitin Gupta Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that due to inadvertent and administrative lapse none had appeared on the date of hearing as the notice/summons of the Complaint was served upon the Petitioner- Bank. Learned Counsel has further submitted that due to inadvertent administrative lapse, said notice was misplaced and could not be traced out. Learned Counsel has further submitted that said notice was traced out only on 29.11.2025 at the time of monthly closing and on verification of the record. Further, it has been submitted that the Petitioner Bank had acted with promptness and diligence and had also instructed the penal Counsel to verify the status of the Complaint pending before the District Commission. On 01.12.2025 it was inquired from the District Commission and thereafter informed the Applicant that the Petitioner Bank had already been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.11.2025. Learned Counsel has further submitted that on finding the status of the case, the Petitioner asked the Counsel to apply for the certified copy of the order and it was received on 09.12.2025. Learned Counsel has further submitted that non-appearance of the Petitioner before the District Commission on the date i.e. 10.11.2025 was neither intentional nor willful but it was only on account unintentional administrative lapse. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without appreciating the principle of natural justice. Further, it has been submitted that the District Commission had also failed to consider that the circumstances which were beyond the control of the OP. It has further been submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice as a great prejudice would be caused in case the opportunity is not granted to contest the Complaint on merits and no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent/Complainant in case exparte order is set aside as the Complaint is at the initial stage. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments of cases i.e. “Branch Manager Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Lomited Vs. Minati Dei & another” R.P. No.1947 of 2019, decided on 14.06.2024 (NC) and “M/s ATS Estate Private Limited & others Vs. Rishabh Patial & another” R.P. No.39 of 2024, d